MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161129117 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3838

EDUCATING ENGINEERS ABOUT PRODUCT DESIGN METHODOLOGY

2011· article· en· W2161129117 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul Kurowski, George K. Knopf

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct designComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)CreativityEngineering design processProcess (computing)New product developmentDesign review (U.S. government)Design educationHigh-level designProduct engineeringDesign technologyManagement scienceSoftware engineeringEngineering managementSystems engineeringEngineeringProduct testingPsychologyOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A successful product designer must combine natural creativity with the systematic use of structured design methodology and modern computer-aided design tools. Practice without proper instruction and formal guidance fails to recognize the vast knowledge of the design process developed by successful professionals. However, designing a product solely by theory without the experience derived from practice is ineffective because many subtleties and exceptions are learned by working on actual design project. In this paper, the authors discuss how formal lectures on product design and development methodology can be effectively combined with a hands-on design project leading to viable solutions by novice engineering students to open-ended problems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207